BlazeLime
Strong and Moving!
Ketrivie
It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.
Tymon Sutton
The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
Smoreni Zmaj
"A Dame to Kill For" is in every way a copy of "Sin City", just telling a different story. The same team is "behind the camera", and in front of it part of the actors from the first movie reprise their roles, enriched with some other big names, such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt, magnificent Eva Green, Ray Liotta i Christopher Meloni. The only disappointment is recasting of Dwight, although Josh Brolin did a very good job. I consider "Sin City" one of the greatest movies of all time, so it could be assumed that this is a ten too. But it doesn't work like that. A perfect ten, in addition to quality in all aspects, must have something of its own, characteristic, something that stands out from the mass, which will be remembered and that will resist tooth of time. This movie, however good, is a copy of the first one that does not bring anything new and, even if it does not fall into oblivion, it will be remembered as a copy. Extremely good, maybe even as good as the original, but still a copy. I think its bad ratings are not based on objective quality, but on the disappointment of the spectators who expected to be blown away in the way that the first film did. But the same people who was amazed by "Sin City" in 2005 can hardly be amazed ten years later by exactly the same things. If they came out in reverse order it is possible that the ratings would be reversed too. Personally, I think that the film is top-notch in every way, but the effect of "already seen" affects me too, so I have to distance it from the original.8,5/10
Gavin Purtell
'Sin City: A Dame To Kill For' is a quality sequel to an exceptional, unique film. I gave 'Sin City' 4.5 stars and this film doesn't quite match the first film's graphic violence or pure originality. Having said that, however, there's still plenty to love about 'Sin City 2' - it's genuinely funny in parts, has the same great comic book-feel, with fantastic use of black & white, shadows and splashes of vivid colour to highlight certain aspects of a scene. The use of animation blends superbly with the actual actors and the score keeps everything moving.Returning from the first 'Sin City' film are Marv (Rourke), Nancy (Alba), Roark (Boothe), Gail (Dawson), Dwight (now Brolin, not Owen), Miho (now Chung, not Aoki), Manute (now Haysbert, not Clarke Duncan, due to obvious reasons) and Hartigan (Willis, in flashbacks). The characters don't get confusing or overwhelming, since the film's basically split into three inter-connected parts. There's Johnny (Gordon-Levitt) and his poker battles with the corrupt Senator Roark, then Ava (Green, who spends 50% of her screen-time naked - not a bad thing!) & Dwight's ill-fated romance, and finally Marv & Nancy's decision to do something about Roark. Almost each of the three parts has overlap with 3-5 characters from the other parts, all handled very well. There's also plenty of great supporting cast - Meloni, Piven, Lloyd, Liotta, Temple.I really enjoy how it looks like a comic book, but it could easily be the back streets of New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. There's some nice tie-ins back to the first film, still plenty of guns, swords and fighting - Marv/Rourke does remind me of Hellboy/Perlman a lot! - all done quickly (less than 100min) and stylishly.
manosnb
When I saw all the negative reviews about this sequel, I thought that it would be yet another one trying to earn some easy bucks capitalising on the success of the original. However, that was not the case at least for me. It has the same nice atmosphere and effects as the first one and new interesting and unpredictable stories. Sure it is not as original as the first one (that would be an extremely difficult task to begin with) and maybe that is the only reason I put an 8 instead of a 9. However, if you enjoyed the first one you probably will enjoy this one as well. The new additions to the cast manage to fill the gaps of their predecessors quite well. I would advise anyone who wishes to watch this movie not to get overly influenced by ratings or how good was the first one and enjoy this sequel for what it is. A nice addition to the first one, like an extension of the concept. I would gladly watch and wait for sin city 3 if it is like this one. Cheers.
NathanMack
I gave this film a 3/10 although I feel that is very generous and more of soft spot for the brilliant work done on the first film. This sequel lacks everything that made the first movie great.The Dwight character continues in this movie but this time portrayed by Josh Brolin rather than Clive Owen. Clive Owen was fantastic in the original but Brolin seems out of his depth in this one. Not the role for him. The Dwight character became awkward and almost seemed weak, seriously lacked the presence of Clive Owens "Dwight".Nancy and Marv return in a conjoined story line (Although Marv has his hands in all the story lines really). Marv was my favourite character in the original Sin City but in this sequel it is almost like he is used as comic relief. His one liners seem forced and contrived and his impact in this film is unmemorable (compared to the original)There is a new character in the sequel called Johnny (Played by Joseph Gordon-Levitts). His story line seems pointless and seems to be gap filler more than anything. A waste of talent for someone I was very excited to see in this film. The ending of his storyline was very stupid as well.One final downer was the cameo of Christopher Lloyd. Was so excited to see his name in the credits and was looking forward to his appearance all film. Unfortunately I blinked and nearly missed it. Another under-use of a brilliant actor. Was expecting much more from this as I believe I gave the original 9/10. We will always have the original I guess.
